In an overhaul of city codes expected to go before the Zoning Commission this fall...

Those new zoning codes (Chapter 16) will require more and better bike parking as well as changing facilities in all new or upgraded buildings (depending on size). And they'll no longer tie the number of spaces to the number of car parking spaces, but rather to the size and purpose of the building.

And, of course, one could argue that anything that makes owning a car more expensive, only makes riding a bike more competitive.

I love this quote from John B. Townsend II of AAA who calls the new rules "discriminatory"

“It smacks at something that makes the District as an exclusive playground for the rich,” said Townsend, noting that those residents would have to pay for private parking if they have a vehicle. “What kind of city do we want to live in? Is this a city only for a certain class, or is it going to be an inviting community where all families can live?”

So, car owners are now a protected class? If he's worried about the poor, he should support higher gas taxes to pay for more buses and larger subsidies.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I thought he was just a blowhard, but Mr. Townsend's comment is very sinister and evil, twisting everything backwards and clearly trying to drive a wedge.

It goes without saying that he is the one advocating against "all families," trying to starve public transportation, complete streets, etc, but what he says is still kind of scary.

Also, what he says just makes no sense; people have to pay for their "included" parking spot in the price of the apartment, so if you have a car you're going to pay for it one way or the other. Only this way, you have the option of not paying for it if you don't want to have a car. Anyway I know I'm preaching to the choir here but this level of hypocrisy makes my head spin.

$35 is less than a full tank of gas and way less than VA charges for its "car tax." $35 is 2-3 days parking in a commercial lot. Irrespective of whether we want more or less cars, it is clear that the city has a big source of revenue for which it is undercharging, when compared to commercial lots, against which $350 for a year would be steal.

There is a strong feeling of being entitled to park one's car on the public street in front of your house.

In some neighborhoods it is so strong that if you mistakenly park your vehicle in front of someone else's house you may find a friendly or not so friendly note left on your windshield.

And woe to the county planner who tries to establish a bus stop in one of these 'exclusive' neighborhoods. The NIMBY's are instantly out in force decrying the taking away of their privileges to use the street for their cars and their cars alone.

Hahahaha regarding Townsend's comment. Lordy, it's a PRIVATE vehicle which should be stored on PRIVATE land and paid for by PRIVATE money. Roads should be about moving vehicles, not storing them. As a taxpayer, I do not want to subsidize where people keep their cars. And these are the same folks who scream about subsidized housing.